People can avoid becoming
the victims of reactance

People are at a meeting and are making recommendations for a company policy that they feel will increase business. The policy could involve a new marketing campaign. The employees in favor of the campaign present their ideas, but are frequently interrupted by members of a bloc who opposes the innovation.

Several members of this bloc argue strongly against the proposal and make good points, but they do so in a condescending, sometimes angry tone of voice. The meeting ends and employees come to no conclusion.

After the meeting, the proponents of the innovation seem even more convinced they should continue pushing for the new marketing campaign. The opponents wonder why the proponents did not accept their arguments against the campaign.

The psychological phenomenon known as reactance is now part of the interactions between the proponents and opponents of the proposed change. When people have freedoms taken away from them, they react in a negative manner. Freedoms include the right to speak up without being interrupted, the right to voice opinions to an audience willing to listen attentively, and the right to seek respect for one's viewpoints.

Everyone wants respect. Problems of not receiving enough respect became a major part of Rodney Dangerfield's comedy routines. As part of their reaction to disrespect and inattention from others, people often become even more convinced of their original positions. One reason is that people react negatively toward the tactics of their proponents. They say, "If these other people have nothing to offer but the ability to interrupt and to be condescending, then we are certainly not going to move toward their position."

If the opponents did make some good points, as they did in the example of the new marketing proposal, these would be overlooked given negative feelings concerning the opponents' presentation style. People are attentive to both what others say and how they say it, and the manner in which the others state their positions often takes precedence.

Reactance can be seen when athletic teams prepare for games. One team says that their opponents are soft and are a bunch of chokers. The team that is the target of these jibes becomes even more convinced that they will win the game and they put more energy into preparations. Often, in postgame interviews, members of the winning team say that they were fired up as a result of their opponents' trash talk. For this reason, coaches tell their players to be careful what they say about opponents prior to game time.

Reactance can be minimized if people listen carefully and respectfully to the arguments of those who disagree with them.

People can be firm when presenting their opinions to others who are likely to disagree, but they should do so in a calm, reasoned manner. After listening respectfully to the others, people can acknowledge any good points that are raised.

When people listen carefully, they often find points of agreement around which compromises can be based.

In the marketing example, for instance, the opponents may bring up issues concerning appropriate media outlets. The proponent may recognize the legitimacy of the concerns and make modifications in their original proposal. All people at the meeting will then feel that they are making contributions and are part of efforts to improve the company. But this exchange of information and concerns cannot take place if people are more interested in shouting and silencing opponents than in forming coalitions in which all concerned individuals can offer mutual support.